Donald John Trump: The 2nd Greatest President of the USA (by volume)

[Nick333]

This whole discussion on inaug crowds and popularity polls raises an interesting conundrum for the MSM that I've not seen addressed in the media:

Here's the MSM narrative:

The Trump inaug was particularly poorly attended - far smaller crowds than the hugely popular Barry Soetoro/Obama at his inaugs.
There was no large-scale popular turnout in DC to support Big Orange on his Big Day. The photos prove it.
Furthermore, he is the least popular POTUS at inaug than any previous president. Polls prove it.
Add in a reminder that Clinton won the popular vote, and we have the picture of an unpopular president opposed by the majority.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. It might well be true.

But here's the problem:

So how then can Trump be both a populist and unpopular?

They can't have it both ways. The very notion of an unpopular populist is a contradiction in terms. Especially when you're arguing that your favourite candidate is more popular, with broader majority support.

On the other hand, Trump is claiming the crowds were huge. He seems to be saying he has broader popular support than Clinton. Yet the MSM are doing all they can to undermine that claim.

The ironies of politics are many indeed. Interesting times.

All the more so when we recall that for EU elites the term "populist" is about the worst thing you could possibly say about anyone's politics (understandably so, given their experience in the last century).

The inauguration attendance thing is a non-issue. DC is a pretty blue city and Obama had the whole first black president thing going for him. I'd be interested to see how Trumps turnout compares to that for other presidents. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that the pic offered as proof was taken a couple of hours before the inauguration.

 

[C4Cat]

This whole discussion on inaug crowds and popularity polls raises an interesting conundrum for the MSM that I've not seen addressed in the media:

Here's the MSM narrative:

The Trump inaug was particularly poorly attended - far smaller crowds than the hugely popular Barry Soetoro/Obama at his inaugs.
There was no large-scale popular turnout in DC to support Big Orange on his Big Day. The photos prove it.
Furthermore, he is the least popular POTUS at inaug than any previous president. Polls prove it.
Add in a reminder that Clinton won the popular vote, and we have the picture of an unpopular president opposed by the majority.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. It might well be true.

But here's the problem:

So how then can Trump be both a populist and unpopular?

They can't have it both ways. The very notion of an unpopular populist is a contradiction in terms. Especially when you're arguing that your favourite candidate is more popular, with broader majority support.

On the other hand, Trump is claiming the crowds were huge. He seems to be saying he has broader popular support than Clinton. Yet the MSM are doing all they can to undermine that claim.

The ironies of politics are many indeed. Interesting times.

All the more so when we recall that for EU elites the term "populist" is about the worst thing you could possibly say about anyone's politics (understandably so, given their experience in the last century).

I suspect the problem here is that you don't actually know what the term populist refers to. It's not a synonym for popular and an unpopular populist is not a contradiction in terms.

 

[schumi]

The inauguration attendance thing is a non-issue. DC is a pretty blue city and Obama had the whole first black president thing going for him. I'd be interested to see how Trumps turnout compares to that for other presidents. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that the pic offered as proof was taken a couple of hours before the inauguration.

It was taken half an hour before

From this Ap site

http://interactives.ap.org/2017/ina...&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Interactive


Both swearing in ceremonies were at noon

There some evidence here from the PBS time lapse that Trumps did not fill it at any time

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence

I do believe that you are correct in say that this is not Trumps area , But Trump has now turned it into him vs the media without providing proof ,perhaps he painted himself in a corner earlier when he said there will be record crowds and its not politically right to admit it.

It only became an issue when Trump made it an issue and then his staff made contradictory statements on tv about it on Sunday, they would have even found better explanations to use from this thread then what was said on Sunday

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

/Nazi crowd

That's a pointless comparison. The crowd photo thing is overblown though, we already knew Trump wasn't going to draw massive crowds it's not a surprise. Also what difference does it make, he's still the president.

 

[Arthur]

I suspect the problem here is that you don't actually know what the term populist refers to. It's not a synonym for popular and an unpopular populist is not a contradiction in terms.

You suspicion is unfounded. I am well aware of the difference. I have argued elsewhere that populist and popular are not synonyms, along with many other similar confusions.

Nevertheless, the very notion of an unpopular populist is rather hard to defend.

 

[Nick333]

It was taken half an hour before

It only became an issue when Trump made it an issue and then his staff made contradictory statements on tv about it on Sunday

I'll admit it was a mistake for Trumps spokesman to deny it, but you are wrong that it only became an issue when he did. It became an issue when every news source reported on it and every libtard shared it within minutes of the event.

 

[schumi]

I'll admit it was a mistake for Trumps spokesman to deny it, but you are wrong that it only became an issue when he did. It became an issue when every news source reported on it and every libtard shared it within minutes of the event.

I disagree he started it when authorities predicted the turn out and on the 17th trump challenged them

The same people who did the phony election polls, and were so wrong, are now doing approval rating polls. They are rigged just like before.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/821344302651555840

 

[Cray]

It was taken half an hour before

It only became an issue when Trump made it an issue and then his staff made contradictory statements on tv about it on Sunday, they would have even found better explanations to use from this thread then what was said on Sunday

It's possible he is feeling a touch sensitive about his support, of the last 4 president elects pre-inauguration, he had comfortably the lowest approval rating.

https://qz.com/885286/presidential-inauguration-donald-trump-has-the-lowest-approval-ratings-of-any-president-elect-in-recent-history/

 

[konfab]

I suspect the problem here is that you don't actually know what the term populist refers to. It's not a synonym for popular and an unpopular populist is not a contradiction in terms.

Introducing Comrade Bernie Sanders...

 

[Noah]

I'd say American voters have a right to feel ripped off at the election results.

Democracy.


Also who honestly cares about inauguration approval ratings? You're being a bunch of spergs.

 

[cerebus]

So how then can Trump be both a populist and unpopular?

You can be both, it's not a contradiction in terms. Populism is an approach that a politician can take, and in no way determines their actual popularity. Plus, there's nothing actually wrong with populism - I would strongly support a populist candidate that I felt was authentically concerned with the people he appealed to.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

46.2 vs 48.1, if you want to be accurate; not sure where the 'less than a quarter' statistic comes from. And of the electoral college win, that came down to around 79,000 votes that swung the difference, out of around 130 million total. I'd say American voters have a right to feel ripped off at the election results. Wait till those who actually voted for Trump realize how much his election promises meant.

It's not obvious whether Clinton would've won the popular vote if Trump had campaigned differently.

His resources were (rightly as it turned out) focused on Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisonsin, Ohio & Michigan. Trump played by the rules of the game and won.

You can't just assume Clinton would've won if the rules were different. Trump would have campaigned in more populous states...

 

[Cray]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/white-house-refuses-release-trump-tax-returns-wikileaks

White House refusal to release Trump tax returns alienates WikiLeaks

Trump Counselor Kellyanne Conway stated today that Trump will not release his tax returns. Send them to: https://wikileaks.org/#submit so we can

 

[cerebus]

It's not obvious whether Clinton would've won the popular vote if Trump had campaigned differently.

His resources were (rightly as it turned out) focused on Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisonsin, Ohio & Michigan.

You can't just assume Clinton would've won if the rules were different. Trump would have campaigned in more populous states...

I realize that; all I'm saying is, a large portion, even the majority of Americans, frankly detest Trump and feel disenfranchised in the voting system and it's hard to blame them. This election there were 2 very bad choices, and some sundry independents who hadn't a snowball's chance of winning anything. Although if you think Trump could have won the populous states, I find that a bit delusional.

 

[konfab]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/white-house-refuses-release-trump-tax-returns-wikileaks

b..but Wikileaks is a puppet of the Russian government, just like Trump.

 

[Arthur]

You can be both, it's not a contradiction in terms. Populism is an approach that a politician can take, and in no way determines their actual popularity. Plus, there's nothing actually wrong with populism - I would strongly support a populist candidate that I felt was authentically concerned with the people he appealed to.

I understand.

However, in Europe the term "populism/-ist" is a pejorative. It's a roll-up term that incorporates "right-wing", "fascist", "bigot", "xenophobe", "nationalist", and even "capitalist".

 

[Azg]

b..but Wikileaks is a puppet of the Russian government, just like Trump.

Not a puppet. More like used by the Russians. Wikileaks will take information from anyone if it's going to be worth leaking.

 

[Noah]

a large portion, even the majority of Americans, frankly detest Trump

That's why he won.

 

[cerebus]

I understand.

However, in Europe the term "populism/-ist" is a pejorative. It's a roll-up term that incorporates "right-wing", "fascist", "bigot", "xenophobe", "nationalist", and even "capitalist".

I feel that on some level a president should be populist. HRC seemed so absurdly out of touch with the realities of American life that she really couldn't stand up against Trump's accusations of elitism.

 

[Nerfherder]

What bs. It was almost 50-50. Maybe you can claim Clinton got 51% or 52% if you really want to beat the popular vote drum, but that's pointless as that isn't how their system works.
If people don't use their votes it doesn't count.

More than 50% of voters abstained, then more than 48% of voters voted for someone else. 75% did not choose him as a president.

You have to look at the real numbers to understand what really happened.